WATER EFFICIENCY LABELLING AND STANDARDS (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 19 June 2013.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:17): I indicate that I will be speaking on the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (South Australia) Bill. This was a bill which, I understand, was introduced by the Hon. Ian Hunter in another place on 1 May this year. I have not read the debates, but I understand that it was passed, otherwise there would be little point of it being here, no doubt. In any event, this is a bill which implements a number of recommendations of a review of the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards scheme (WELS).

The opposition will be supporting this bill as I assume, without having read the debates in the other place, that is exactly what we did in another place. However, there are a number of aspects of this bill that I wish to outline for the digestion of the house.

The bill will effectively apply the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act—I was going to say 2005, but I do not think that is right. What has happened is that there was a scheme established back in 2005 under that act, and that had been developed as a result of the then Howard government—goodness me, I wish they were back in Canberra—developing an initiative as part of the then Council of Australian Governments' National Water Initiative, which set about establishing a scheme to provide certain efficiency labelling and standards to apply to water products, and I will expand on that in a moment.

As I understand it, in 2010, there was a review of the WELS scheme that had been established under the Howard government. I might not be right, but as I understand it, this was conducted as part of the previous commonwealth legislation which would necessitate there being a review. If I am incorrect on that, it might have been done on a voluntary basis.

It is not unusual legislation, especially when it is new and introduces new concepts, that there be a sunset clause or, alternatively, an automatic review of the new and novel legislation and, as I understand it, that is what occurred in this instance. In any event, there was a review. I am further advised that the Standing Council on Environment and Water agreed to most of the recommendations and, as a consequence, this bill was established.

I have also been provided with a copy of the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment (Scheme Enhancements) Act 2012, which is the commonwealth act to amend the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 and for other related purposes. That legislation has obviously passed, otherwise it would not be described as an act. In any event, I do note that the principal provision of the commonwealth legislation, which, as I said, came about as a result of the review and the recommendations that were made, is to establish a registration of WELS products.

I stand to be corrected, but as I understand it again, the previous 2005 legislation made provision for there to be a WELS scheme, but it did not result in there being a compulsory registration process. There were optional registration opportunities, as I understand it, but there were provisions for a number of other aspects to operate in each of the individual jurisdictions. Schedule 3, part 2 of the commonwealth 2012 act repealed the old 19(2) to (4) and substituted the following:

(2) The WELS standard must require the products to be registered for the purposes of specified supplies of the product.

(3) The WELS standard may require one or more of the following:

(a) that the products comply with specified minimum water efficiency requirements for the purposes of specified supplies of the product;

(b) that the products comply with specified minimum general performance requirements for the purposes of specified supplies of the product;

(c) that the products comply with one or more requirements relating to plumbing imposed by or under a law of a State or Territory, as in force from time to time;

(d) that a specified type of person or body certifies that the products comply with one or more requirements relating to plumbing imposed by or under a law of a State or Territory, as in force from time to time;

(e) that the products be WELS-labelled for the purposes of specified supplies of the product.

The original WELS scheme was a joint initiative between the commonwealth, states and territories. As I say, my understanding is that it was a voluntary scheme and that it has morphed into a mandatory scheme. This is this compulsory registration model.

The objective of the whole exercise was to implement uniform water efficiency labelling and standards throughout Australia. The scheme legislates the minimum water labelling information and water efficiency standards that must be displayed at a point of sale, as well as through advertising on specific plumbing, sanitary and whitegoods products. Apparently, this does not include any energy information and, from what I read in the commonwealth legislation, that appears to be the case. As I say, the genesis of this scheme was under the Howard government.

The legislation which has been passed in addition to the commonwealth act that I have just referred to is the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments) Act 2013, the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment Act 2011 and the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment (Antarctic Seals and Other Measures) Act 2006. I am not entirely sure where the Antarctic seals come into this and I do not suppose they would be compulsorily labelled or tattooed with an energy efficiency label but, nevertheless, you never know: it might be part of the government's new management of abundant native species or New Zealand fur seals. It would be a novel approach, no doubt, but, in any event, that is the legislation which apparently is the subject of amendment.

The most concerning aspect of this legislation for me—and I think it is fair to say that there are sceptics dotted around the parliament, not just on my side of the house—originates from the concern that we are so often told that having a national scheme, having a consistent regime of regulatory obligation harmonising our rules and regulations for a particular practice or outlawing of certain behaviour or obliging people to actually positively do certain things, makes it easier and simpler and cheaper for the general consumer and/or industry representative if it relates to an industry obligation.

In this instance, my understanding of the objective is to provide enhanced information that is clear and consistent, wherever you might buy certain products, for the consumer's benefit and to assist them in the selection of the purchase of certain products which utilise water. That is not surprising because, from a consumer's point of view, general household use is the one for which they have a direct responsibility to acquire the furnishings and amenities, and therefore they are likely to have an interest in the attributes of its water efficiency.

Members would be aware that there has been a wave of development of laws to enhance information availability for consumers. In our state, this has been over a number of decades, but particularly since extensive consumer legislation in relation not only to the quality of the product and/or the merchandise but also to the accessibility to information for the consumer credit obligations that might surround the acquisition of products.

It is not surprising that this was developed because, firstly, of accessibility and entitlement to knowledge about people's legal rights—that if they purchase a product it should be of a certain merchantable standard and that consumers are entitled to rely on the material that is published about the benefits and attributes of a certain product or service. Consumer law has developed, so as the public became more informed of their entitlements to have access to this sort of standard they also demanded to have corresponding, adequate information to be able to service the enforcement of their rights and obligations in relation to these standards.

That is one aspect of it, but I think the other is that the public expect and have developed an increasing thirst for the entitlement to have all the information about a product so that they can make an informed choice. It is not just a question of who I might sue down the track if something was represented that was not actually fulfilled in the product when it was acquired and in operation, but they want to know that information up-front so that they are able to make an informed choice about the product.

Recently, I was advised that the loyalty of consumers for the purchase of products in the context of buying things from supermarkets is worth about 2 per cent on the question of cost. The extension of that assertion, which I have no reason to suggest is not right, is that people will select a particular product within a range of products according to a number of things: cost, quality, advertised performance, verification of third-party endorsement of other parties, colour, origin of its manufacture or production, and whether it is local or imported.

These are all features of the multitude of reasons why people select certain products, but it seems that the desire to buy local or the passion for a particular colour is subservient in the end to questions of cost. That is hardly surprising. I might look into a shop and see a beautiful Versace creation. I often describe the member whose picture hangs on our wall—Mrs Joyce Steele, the first female member of the parliament—as wearing what I call her Versace blue outfit.

In any event, I might see a garment displayed in a window or, these days, on the internet somewhere (I am not sure if you can buy the Versace products on the internet), look at it and think, 'Goodness, that is absolutely gorgeous, that is just what I need for the next Journalists' Ball,' and I might decide that this is something I would like to buy. It ticks all the boxes: it is nice in its design, it is attractive in its colour. I work out that they make it in my size, but when I click on the button for the price I view that it is $10,500, and I rethink that purchase.

I rethink that purchase because it becomes apparent to me that, as attractive as it is in complying with all my other objectives, it does not quite balance the cost option; therefore, I might go off and buy a more suitably priced piece for my capacity—this is no reflection, I might say, just in case I am somehow or another sued above parliamentary privilege, of any denigration of Versace products—for $250 which might do the job, which might be sufficiently suitable to wear multiple times and which would be a much more sensible purchase, so I go down that line.

Overlapping all these usual features of why we buy products, and of the consumer's choice of the features they are looking for, are two or three areas; one of them, I think, is who makes the product and what were the working circumstances of the product. If we are using clothing as an example, I might be impressed by the fact that I can buy a copy Versace design for a gown that was made in Burma for $280.

I might be attracted to that price, but I might undertake an inquiry as to where it was made, find it was made in a country where there are substandard working conditions for those poor wretches who are expected to make it, and I make an ethical decision that, even though something out there was very much more attractive financially, it offended my sense of what was acceptable in its development and, therefore, I reject that product. That is one of the new things that I think has become very significant in the purchase of product.

To consider even the production of food and the methods whereby food is produced has attracted another area of interest for consumers, and concern in certain circumstances, to ensure that when they acquire a product, or they are looking to select a product, they have to be satisfied that the meat, chicken, or eggs, for example, have been matured and/or developed in an environment which is humane to the animals or creatures we are about to consume. This has added another level of significance in the consumer's mind when they select products.

A third area is that they are looking for efficiency. They are looking to acquire a product that has either been manufactured or developed with conscientious attention to the use of resources, including water and energy. These are particularly acute in South Australia because not only do we have a limited capacity of production of our power but we also have very limited access to water resources.

That is not just because we have a drought every now and again that causes us to focus our attention on the plight of the River Murray but also because we have infrastructure in South Australia that only accumulates a reserve of water that will provide for metropolitan Adelaide and other services that now rely on SA Water's network for a very short term relative to Australia. I think, in South Australia, we have 1½ years supply of water in our reservoirs, dams, bladders and other things that we have around the state to hold our supply, whereas interstate other major metropolitan areas have a very significantly greater capacity to hold and therefore years of supply to be able to get them through drought periods more easily, for example.

Back to the consumers, they are also looking, when they buy a product, to be satisfied (if it is within a reasonable price range) with its water and energy consumption for, I suppose, two reasons. One, to satisfy themselves that they are not perpetuating an abuse or waste of precious resources. It makes consumers feel good when they buy a product that does not waste resources. Secondly, that when they turn on the product—for example if it is a washing machine—they will be satisfied that it will use the least amount of water as possible.

For example, dishwashing manufacturers and retailers often advertise how water conscious they are in ensuring that the amount of water used in a full cycle is, as best possible, less than that which would be used if the same amount of dishes were washed in someone's sink. I accept, of course, that this is highly subjective. The member for Giles, for example, might be very efficient. She lives in a dry district.

Whyalla, of course, is on the edge of a desert, the beautiful city that it is. When she is home washing her dishes, I would expect, having had that background, that she would be very water conscious anyway. Probably, when she has finished washing her dishes in a bowl (with the Velvet soap to make sure that it was able to be reused), she would promptly take it out to the garden and make sure that it is reused. Probably similarly, when she is doing her—

The Hon. L.R. Breuer: When it's brown, flush it down. When it's yellow, let it mellow.

Ms CHAPMAN: When it's yellow, let it mellow—yes, I have heard of that. I will come to the toilets in a minute, and I will of course take the member for Giles out of the next section. Just while we are on dishes, this is something that is considered by the product producers and the retailers to be a great aspect of their promotion of the product, if they can justify that the water that is going to be used in the cleaning and sparkly rinsing of these products in the dishwasher is going to be less than what is used in the bowl.

I do not think there is any doubt that the claim that providing that information to the consumer is helpful to the consumer and that it would influence some consumers in the way they select their product. For some, the higher level of water efficiency, whether in the generation of the product, as I say, or in its use when it comes to be placed in their home, will be a feature that will weigh heavily on them when they select the product.

I think it was an important initiative of the Howard government to legislate, as best as possible, to have some level of commitment to this across the Australian borders to make this information available and consistent. Consistent with Liberal policy, we took the view, and we remain of the view, that very often it is better—in exceptional circumstances perhaps it is necessary—to allow the consumer to have that choice. We are not necessarily of the view that it is necessary to introduce a mandatory obligation for the display of water efficiency labelling and standards to ensure that we adequately provide for consumer choice and information.

It also goes to the question, whether it is mandatory or voluntary, as to whether the water efficiency is the only aspect of concern. I think we know the answer to that is no. Clearly, cost is a major factor. Again, I will use the member for Giles because I know that she would be absolutely efficient when it came to the selection of whitegoods for her home.

She might look at a range of washing machines or dishwashers and look at all the efficiency aspects of it and think, 'Well, this is an aspect that I need to consider and I am conscious of it,' and when she selects the product she has taken out a subset that it is water efficient, and then she goes back and looks at the question of cost, colour and size to fit into the space in her home at Whyalla.

After all that, having been very water conscious, being very cost conscious, being very attentive to all the things that a responsible person would do in assessing the pros and cons of a particular selection, she then goes across to the one that has an Australian flag draped all over it—in its colour—and ultimately makes a purchase that has nothing to do with cost, efficiency or the size to meet her particular household needs.

I cannot answer—and I do not think anyone in the house can answer—how people balance these different aspects or features when considering the acquisition of products. I think in the modern day, if I were to make a stab in the dark anecdotally, that water efficiency or power efficiency is a factor that would attract the attention of most purchasers, at least initially, I think I would be right.

I think there are two reasons for that: first, there has been a general development of interest and understanding of natural resource use; and, secondly, because water costs now are so extraordinary, are so high, have raced up the level so quickly that it would be hard to imagine how any adult person who has to pay a water bill these days would not have it uppermost in their mind.

It is concerning that we are not going to have any relief from that. It is concerning that we, on all accounts, can expect that we are going to have another increase in water costs before the end of the year. Probably most disturbing for me—and I think other members would be worried about this as well—is that we have introduced some alternate water supplies: one, of course, is the desal plant which I will not spend any time on because obviously we are not going to be turning it on for the purposes of production or our use, and it is a very expensive piece of infrastructure and it is very expensive to produce water from it.

However, I will mention the purple pipe water; that is, the reused water from our treatment plants at Glenelg and I think some comes from Bolivar—I may be wrong; it may all come from Glenelg. It is transported in purple pipes to the City of Adelaide. I mention that because they have to have special purple pipes for that water. The purple pipes indicate to anyone who might be digging in the area or thinking of letting their dog drink from it, if they are in a parkland, that it is not for human consumption because it has only been treated to a level that is suitable for growing roses, watering lawns, etc. So, we have notices by the colour of pipes to alert the outside world that non-potable water is being transported through those pipes.

I am getting to my point, which is that, unfortunately, even if you were to access that water, which I think some councils (Adelaide City Council) and possibly even some schools have signed up to—and they are able to use that water in non-human consumption environments. I do not know whether they are currently able to do this or not, but if they are able to use that sort of water in their washing machine in a school boarding house facility, for example, then they would need to take into account the cost of that water. The amount that is used—especially if it is on the basis of providing for washing facilities for a boarding house, where there may be 100 children or more living there, then this is a very expensive exercise because, unfortunately, even purple water is very expensive.

I think the former minister for water, who is listening intently to this debate, actually acted at some stage to slightly reduce the formula to ensure that it was a little bit more equitable in its cost, and that was great. Actually, it was the day that he escorted me down to view the magnificent new information centre at the desalination plant, and I thank him for his most gracious company on that day. I did have a bit to say about it during estimates, only because it seems to be very disappointing that we are going to have this beautiful visitor centre down there—$3.2 million worth or something—with beautiful little iPads for everyone to have a look at, to walk over grounds for a desalination plant that is going to be turned off.

Nevertheless, I remember it was on that day because we discussed the question of the price of purple water—that is this recycled water from the treatment works at Glenelg. On that very day, I was pleased to see that he actually announced the new formula, and I read it with interest. I thought, 'He is on the ball, this minister. He has actually taken up this advice quickly.' Then, of course, I actually worked out what the formula meant and I thought that this was such a tiny drop in the bucket of relief, unfortunately. Nevertheless, at first blush I was most impressed and I was joyous at the fact that he had responded to my pleas for some relief on the cost of water.

I will come to this question of how water efficiency labelling will assist the consumer. I think the bottom line is, yes, it will assist. Why is it necessary for us to make this a compulsory registration process? I do not know. I still do not understand why it is necessary to make it compulsory. We are the party that believes in choice and supporting labelling. If you are going to use it, it should be consistent. There seems to be a good marketing case for the owners, manufacturers, retailers and promoters of products to use water efficiency, just like energy efficiency, as one of the tools in the toolbox, as they say, to help sell a product, and it is an advantage to offer that information. Otherwise, if that is not the case, I would be surprised as to why so many under the voluntary scheme apply it and use it, and we obviously see it out there today.

The likelihood of there being a direct promotion of products that are water efficient but fail on other relevant factors, which are not disclosed, is a matter of concern. For example, what if a particular dishwasher, while we are on dishwashers—after the member for Giles has sensibly selected hers and installed it, other consumers come along to buy a dishwasher and they are impressed by the label that says that this particular product is more water efficient than others in the range, and they buy that product based on the compulsory promotion of and registration of consistent water efficiency labelling for products that are displayed on the product.

As a result of being attracted to that issue, they do not have presented to them other information about the circumstances in which the product was made, and I go back to the example of the fake Versace dress which is made in Burma. What if a particular product has an impressive trade name but, on further inquiry, is actually made in a country of origin and in a circumstance in which the factory conditions were really unacceptable and unethical and certainly not to the standards that Australians would expect in our own country? What if that information has not been displayed and therefore the choice is made on the alleged water efficiency, rather than these other important aspects?

When we start introducing regimes which require, in this case, the registration of products and the identification of water efficiency—just as we might do for electricity efficiency, just as we might do for the disclosure of an obligation to provide the total amount of repayments under a consumer credit agreement, not just the interest rate or the weekly payments—we then give that preference over other features which actually might be more deserving of display and/or advice to the prospective consumer. I wince a bit when I read legislation which imposes an obligation which is compulsory.

I now turn to the model that has been adopted. Having passed federal legislation, the proposal is that each of the states would pass their legislation to accept the formula and obligations laid down in the commonwealth act. We have a number of ways of having uniform implementation of a certain regime in Australia in a legislative sense. Sometimes we pass a law in every state or territory which is exactly the same. Sometimes we say as a state, 'Look, we will hand over our power on this to the commonwealth' and they make a law and we just tap into it and do not make anything inconsistent with it. Sometimes we agree that the commonwealth will make a law and then we will just allow that to be adopted into our jurisdictions. That law will then become our law as a state model and we will then apply it, and that ensures another way of achieving some consistency.

My understanding is that New South Wales has adopted the same type of model already, that Tasmania has a bill (it may or may not have passed) and, similarly, Victoria and Western Australia have indicated their agreement and/or sympathy to participate in this scheme. I am not sure as to whether that has advanced or not over the last few weeks, but as of at least last month my understanding is that they had not yet introduced bills. We are following the third model, as I understand it; that is, we are going to follow the lead from Canberra. It is not something I have always cherished but, nevertheless, that is the way we are going to do it.

As I have said, the aim of this legislation is to be more efficient, effective, fair to registrants and informative to consumers. The ring of that is just so inviting. Unfortunately, so many times we have seen the reality not come into effect. I do not think this bill has come into the house but I did read recently that it is the intention of the government to introduce electronic registration of conveyancing. Just to give you an example of where some of these things can go terribly pear-shaped, what happens is that each of the jurisdictions has developed its own legal processes.

We have different rules about how we transfer and deal with property. South Australia has, I think—and we should be proud of this—an excellent scheme in which the registration of property is secured under a Torrens title system which has served us in good stead and of which, as I say, we should be very proud. When we go into an electronic conveyancing system to have this harmonious opportunity to have the same set of rules around the country, I would expect that we in South Australia will be the worse for it.

We have started with a good scheme. It has been copied and adopted around the world in other jurisdictions. We have enhanced that scheme, including the searching and access to information under our registration system, which is electronic and which people can do from their offices now. There is a public register which is a very tidy unit in its operation. I certainly fear that this rush to harmonise and have the same around Australia is going to weaken us into a model that is inferior to what we currently enjoy in South Australia. That is disappointing.

The other thing that sometimes is not recognised when we rush to this harmonisation approach is that the case law that sits behind the rights and responsibilities of the various parties that are relevant to a particular aspect that is being harmonised has been interpreted by courts and tribunals in each of the jurisdictions in a different way. Each of them has built up a body of case law that is different, not surprisingly, because firstly it is interpreting system that is different around the country and secondly because it has developed in a different way.

You have bodies of case law that are not harmonised and they are not about to be, so what we do is go through this sometimes uncomfortable period, unfortunately with a model which is often the lowest common denominator, having to start with a whole lot of new transitional and regulatory reforms to go with it and then build on a whole lot of case law in its interpretation and applicability. I am not the great disciple of this national harmonisation. I commend the Howard government for discussing and developing a water efficiency labelling scheme. I am concerned, however, that the approach has now tightened after this review into a mandatory scheme which is in the model in this way.

The other aspect that I just place on the record is that it should be remembered that, when the COAG, in considering the review of the Standing Council on Environment and Water, reached this agreement to use this model, this is a model that will allow the commonwealth to make the changes in its bill and we will then be obliged to carry that amendment that they have made the decision on. There is an answer to those who say, 'Well, that isn't really right. There won't be any changes to the federal position unless there has been full consultation with all of the different states.'

Presumably they will go along to another ministerial council meeting of some combination, and they will reach agreement and there will not be any changes to the federal system without there being a formula of approval at the state level. I do not know whether one state or territory can veto that but, in any event, there is a process where usually a majority will follow. That always concerns me, because adopting the model which says that we just absorb and follow and adopt the commonwealth model into our scheme has some concerns.

There is one final thing I would say in respect of the arrangement as to how this will operate. As I understand it, the registration fee arrangements will follow from this, because obviously with any compulsory registry process there are fee arrangements that will subsequently be charged as a result, with the aim of simplifying and streamlining the registration process. The other aspect in its approaches is that it will also subsequently line up with the commonwealth definition of supply and will include many more products.

The other aspect which I find interesting is that by using this model, the offence committed if one breaches the obligations—presumably, refuse to register, fail to register, fail to register in the correct time, provide inadequate information, etc.—will be treated as an offence against the commonwealth. I do not know about you, Mr Acting Speaker, but I do not have a lot of confidence in the application of the services provided in a number of commonwealth departments being any better than what our state departments provide. Furthermore, they are geographically much more remote from ours.

It is sometimes unfair to make a generalisation like that, but I am always mindful of how the federal representatives will frequently say to the state representatives, 'Look, we know how to manage this. We can provide a higher level of service. We have more resources available to us. We have more qualified people to attend to it.' I often think of the example of AQIS, which is the federal body responsible for protecting us against importation of disease, and the scandal that erupted when they failed to protect us even against horse flu, for goodness sake.

This is the national hotshot team that is supposed to be protecting us. In South Australia this is a very big issue; I am sure it was in others. I remember the state minister, who was, I think, then the minister for health, the member for Kaurna as he is now, had issued a directive under his regulatory powers under the public health laws of the day that all horses and asses and donkeys and various other animals of that—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): Equine.

Ms CHAPMAN: Equine—family had to be restricted in where they could travel. You could not take them from one paddock to another, one property to another or transport them in a truck or anything else. So, there were lots of things that came about, and not just inconvenience but the massive exposure to financial consequence as a result of the incompetence of the federal body.

Whenever I am told it is important we recognise that we have all of these benefits by the federal arena taking responsibility, it does not inspire me with confidence. There is a litany of examples as to why we would do that. I am still at a complete loss as to why even local governments appear to be hell-bent on wanting to establish a financial relationship to be secured by the constitution to provide them with finance, they say, for infrastructure projects. I often say to them, 'How can you possibly expect that you are going to get or be assured of any better service from a federal agency than you are from the current state administration?'

I am certainly not going to wander into the murky waters of the standards that currently apply in some government departments. I think that, overall, our government departments and the members in them are professional and do a good job, but it does concern me that when we look to reform that, as in this legislation, we seem to be placing a high level of responsibility on our commonwealth colleagues in the parliament and in their departments and in the enforcement agencies that will recognise this as a commonwealth law.

Again, the critics of me on that aspect may say: 'Well look, we'll still prosecute these cases through the local Magistrates Court. We will simply be apply commonwealth law', and I just find that quite extraordinary. However, we are assured that the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has received 119 submissions on the scheme, specifically in relation to the funding arrangements, registration fees, rules and processes, compliance and enforcement and further development, and that the assurance is given by the government advisers on this matter that industry is supportive of the scheme.

The further reassurance I place on the record is that, apparently, there have been no concerns from the South Australian submissions. I have not read them personally, but we have been given that assurance. So, with that contribution, I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the bill.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL (Mawson—Minister for Tourism, Minister for Recreation and Sport) (17:13): The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards scheme is a joint initiative between the commonwealth, state and territory governments introduced nationally in 2006 and supported by complementary legislation in South Australia and other Australian jurisdictions. The WELS scheme serves to encourage the take-up of water-efficient appliances by consumers by requiring that water efficiency and performance information is available in a standard and robust form at their point of sale.

In this way, those looking to purchase WELS appliances, such as clothes washers, dishwashers, showers, taps and toilets can make informed purchasing decisions. The WELS scheme also provides for minimum water efficiency standards. Such standards currently apply to clothes washing machines and toilets and I am informed that there are plans for considering whether they may also apply to a number of other products in the near future.

In addition, I also understand that consideration is being given to the application of WELS labelling requirements to additional products not currently covered by the scheme, such as evaporative air conditioners. The WELS scheme has been proven to deliver a significant community and industry benefit, including water and energy savings and avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions. An independent analysis of the WELS scheme in 2008 estimated that, nationally, the scheme would, over the period 2006 to 2021, save 800 billion litres of water and more than nine million megawatt hours of energy, and result in the avoidance of more than six million tonnes of greenhouse gases.

The original commonwealth WELS act, in 2005, received broad support in the Australian parliament when it was first introduced. Since then the commonwealth act has been amended several times, with those changes also receiving broad political support. These amendments have been made for various purposes, including to improve the scheme's efficiency, to ensure that registered WELS products are fit for purpose, to enhance funding arrangements and to strengthen compliance. As a result, South Australia's WELS act 2006 is not currently consistent with the commonwealth act, with the result that the essential purpose of WELS legislation, to ensure local application is consistent with the national approach, is somewhat diminished.

Consistent application of the WELS scheme within and across jurisdictions is important for the effectiveness of the scheme and for ensuring a level playing field. In the absence of legislative consistency, there is the potential for different requirements to apply to importers and incorporated enterprises under the commonwealth WELS legislation compared to an unincorporated business that manufactures WELS products for trade solely within South Australia.

The bill before the house today will ensure that South Australia's WELS legislation is brought back into line with the commonwealth WELS act, and also mitigates the likelihood of needing to amend South Australia's act as a result of any future administrative changes to the national legislation. It will also reduce potential confusion and any administrative burden that businesses might otherwise face if differing requirements apply under state and commonwealth WELS acts. The bill will do this by applying the commonwealth water efficiency laws as laws of this state. The bill also allows for South Australia to vary the commonwealth water efficiency laws as they apply within South Australia, should it be appropriate.

The passing of this bill by the South Australian parliament will continue this state's strong role in water management locally and nationally. I would like to thank members of this house for their time and consideration of this legislation, and I also thank officers from minister Hunter's office as well as from the department for their assistance.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL (Mawson—Minister for Tourism, Minister for Recreation and Sport) (17:17): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

[Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. L.W.K. Bignell]